Ira Isaacs Guilty

[mikesouth]

On all 5 counts

[DWB]

Isn't he facing something like 20 years then?

[MediaGuy]

Really? Where's the link...?

:D

[alias]

Probably should have taken the deal.

[iSpyCams]

Why don't we just have models throw in a 30 second rant about some political issue they care about at the end of every scene? Wouldn't that make it political propaganda?

[JosephFM]

Shitty day for him I guess.

[babymaker]

???????? http://www.xbiz.com/news/147689 not guilt here in email blast? Cant get to it tho my internet is fucked.

[alextokyo]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

On all 5 counts

FACT: 9/10 people hitting this thread have to Google the name just to know what the fuck you're talking about.

Admit it, faggots.

[babymaker]

ehh xbiz lol not exactly cnn :D email blast said not gult on 7 counts then went 404 lol and he's guilt on 5 :D fucking adult news media lol.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by pompousjohn

Why don't we just have models throw in a 30 second rant about some political issue they care about at the end of every scene? Wouldn't that make it political propaganda?

Probably woulda have been a good idea given the Miller test, eh.

Since under Miller, the government has to show that the work TAKEN AS A WHOLE has no artistic or social value, we used to have a "legal" page with copies of Supreme Court decisions on our sites. The prosecution would have a tough time arguing that Supreme Court opinions have no social value. Not to say that technique would be bulletproof, but it would certainly tourist the prosecution's argument.

[mikesouth]

he is facing 25 years theres a backstory here to be sure one I am considering breaking...Ira wouldnt even have been on the DOJ radar except he made a fundamental mistake.

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

he is facing 25 years theres a backstory here to be sure one I am considering breaking...Ira wouldnt even have been on the DOJ radar except he made a fundamental mistake.

C'mon, the coy "maybe I will say maybe I won't" tact is just conduct unbecoming of one such as yourself that has made a reputation from not being afraid to say stuff...

[Joe Obenberger]

Here's Ira's story, in his own words, something he wrote while he was waiting for the jury to come back in his second trial, the case that ended with the hung jury. He turned down many offers of a plea: http://business.avn.com/articles/leg...ys-467723.html

Mark Kernes' article at AVN says he was convicted on 5 counts. It's five years per count maximum. It sounds like the government also prevailed on the forfeiture of assets count as well. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines add points for BDSM, Internet Distribution, being head of an enterprise, and the revenues add points as well. It's unlikely in the extreme that he's eligible for probation.

I read each of Mark Kernes's articles. It sounds like Roger Diamond did as good a job as any human could do in defending this kind of material. You should know that Ira ran out of money a long time ago. Roger did this third trial for nothing.

It also sounds like this judge was fair and decent and gave Ira a fair trial, and that's not the case in most of the trials we've read about in recent years.

The XBIZ mistake was a fluke. I got the email, too, only to find a prompt retraction without an explanation of how it ran in the first place.

Not just a sad day for Ira. It's a sad day for all of us whenever censorship prevails. No matter what. Government should not be in the business of controlling what people can view, read, and buy, no matter how distasteful to how many people.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by raymor

Probably woulda have been a good idea given the Miller test, eh.

Since under Miller, the government has to show that the work TAKEN AS A WHOLE has no artistic or social value, we used to have a "legal" page with copies of Supreme Court decisions on our sites. The prosecution would have a tough time arguing that Supreme Court opinions have no social value. Not to say that technique would be bulletproof, but it would certainly tourist the prosecution's argument.

Joe, if you have a moment, can you discuss the ideas in the post I have quoted above, and explain why this approach does not work?

I was about to give a shot at explaining it myself, but me doing it would only serve to oversimplify and misstate the arguments, standards and case law at issue, and the discussion deserves better than that.

[iSpyCams]

Originally Posted by raymor

Probably woulda have been a good idea given the Miller test, eh.

Since under Miller, the government has to show that the work TAKEN AS A WHOLE has no artistic or social value, we used to have a "legal" page with copies of Supreme Court decisions on our sites. The prosecution would have a tough time arguing that Supreme Court opinions have no social value. Not to say that technique would be bulletproof, but it would certainly tourist the prosecution's argument.

Yeah seems like the model turning to the camera and saying "I take it in the pooper to save spotted owls - call your congressman today and ask who he takes it in the pooper for" or something would make it a political statement.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Joe, if you have a moment, can you discuss the ideas in the post I have quoted above, and explain why this approach does not work?

I was about to give a shot at explaining it myself, but me doing it would only serve to oversimplify and misstate the arguments, standards and case law at issue, and the discussion deserves better than that.

In a nutshell, the courts have told us that they are not stupid, and what is obviously a pretext to avoid obscenity law, like adding a Supreme Court case to an otherwise obscene work, is not enough.

Works are judged as a whole under Miller, and something in the nature of slap-on label does not add to what the work fundamentally is.

The most famous articulation of that is found in Kois v. Wisconsin, http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/kois.html a per curiam decision of the Supreme Court in 1972, involving a Milwaukee underground newspaper (one that I grew up with in Milwaukee) name Kaleidescope, which featured poems about sex next to pictures of people fucking. The Supreme Court considered the possibility of pretext to try to slip obscenity through, famously saying, "A quotation from Voltaire in the flyleaf of a book will not constitutionally redeem an otherwise obscene publication, but if these pictures were indeed similar to the one seized - and we do not understand the State to contend differently - they are relevant to the theme of the article. " They reversed the conviction without even requiring the defendant to file a brief. A "per curiam" decision means that no particular justice wrote it. It is the words of the whole court.

You can read my observations about that case (and others) at http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/index.html.

The question of just exactly a "work as a whole" is on the internet is a question not fully resolved, In both Extreme Associates and in Max Hardcore, individual clips were charged, under 30 seconds in duration, extracted from much bigger websites. The best insight into the subject comes out of a case involving magazines from the Fifth Circuit, McAuliffe. http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/penthouse.html

[alextokyo]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

In a nutshell, the courts have told us that they are not stupid, and what is obviously a pretext to avoid obscenity law, like adding a Supreme Court case to an otherwise obscene work, is not enough.

Works are judged as a whole under Miller, and something in the nature of slap-on label does not add to what the work fundamentally is.

The most famous articulation of that is found in Kois v. Wisconsin, http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/kois.html a per curiam decision of the Supreme Court in 1972, involving a Milwaukee underground newspaper (one that I grew up with in Milwaukee) name Kaleidescope, which featured poems about sex next to pictures of people fucking. The Supreme Court considered the possibility of pretext to try to slip obscenity through, famously saying, "A quotation from Voltaire in the flyleaf of a book will not constitutionally redeem an otherwise obscene publication, but if these pictures were indeed similar to the one seized - and we do not understand the State to contend differently - they are relevant to the theme of the article. " They reversed the conviction without even requiring the defendant to file a brief. A "per curiam" decision means that no particular justice wrote it. It is the words of the whole court.

You can read my observations about that case (and others) at http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/index.html.

The question of just exactly a "work as a whole" is on the internet is a question not fully resolved, In both Extreme Associates and in Max Hardcore, individual clips were charged, under 30 seconds in duration, extracted from much bigger websites. The best insight into the subject comes out of a case involving magazines from the Fifth Circuit, McAuliffe. http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/penthouse.html

Nice.

However, you should've just chosen a username ending with "einer" or "sky". Trust me bro, -"berger" went out with UCJ. Perhaps even "witz" if you really wanted to pull in the big bucks, Mr. Well Educated Respectable Fully Qualified Legal Lawyer With Proven Track Record Who Gets Considerable Results. Sir.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by alextokyo

Nice.

However, you should've just chosen a username ending with "einer" or "sky". Trust me bro, -"berger" went out with UCJ. Perhaps even "witz" if you really wanted to pull in the big bucks, Mr. Well Educated Respectable Fully Qualified Legal Lawyer With Proven Track Record Who Gets Considerable Results. Sir.

Paul Cambria did OK without all that. He did good for a Sicilian Boy.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

In a nutshell, the courts have told us that they are not stupid, and what is obviously a pretext ... is not enough.
...
"A quotation from Voltaire in the flyleaf of a book will not constitutionally redeem an otherwise obscene publication ...

these pictures ... are relevant to the theme of the article [so] they reversed the conviction without even requiring the defendant to file a brief.

So if I understand correctly, though they said an obvious pretext wouldn't be sufficient if it was completely unrelated to the work as a whole, they reversed the conviction (the guy got off) because the text and the pictures were thematically related, correct? So adding text along with the pictures did actually work. A Voltaire quotation, being wholly unrelated to the pictures, would not suffice, they said, correct?

Is it your opinion, then, that quotations from court opinions about the first amendment as it applies to nude photos, and commentary thereon, placed alongside examples of such works, would be thematically related and therefore (arguably) fall under Kois?

Assuming that the scholarly work is thematically related as expressed in Kois, so the argument can made, do you believe that's better than not having that argument available at all?

That is to say, which is easier to defend?:
anal sex videos
Court decisions about anal sex accompanied by anal sex videos

Either could put you in jail, but which is better?

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Far-L

C'mon, the coy "maybe I will say maybe I won't" tact is just conduct unbecoming of one such as yourself that has made a reputation from not being afraid to say stuff...

OK ya kinda got me...what that actually meant was more like Im busier than a one armed wallpaper hanger but Im gonna get to it....LOL

[Barry-xlovecam]

18:1465(a): IMPORTATION OF
TRANSPORTATION OF OBSCENE
MATERIAL FOR SALE OR
DISTRIBUTION
(1-3)
18:1462(a): IMPORTATION OR
TRANSPORTATION OF OBSCENE
MATERIAL
(5)
18:2257(f)(4): IMPROPER RECORD
KEEPING FOR MATERIAL
DEPICTING SEXUAL ACTIVITY
(7-8)

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...1440&b ih=592
6/14/2008

Any idea if Counts 7 and 8 were dropped?

There may be a silver lining in this as there were commercial transactions involved of so called "regulated deceptions" as well as obscene materials.

[W]hen it came time for prosecutor Damon King to cross examine, the attorney stuck largely to the facts, questioning Isaacs on whether he or his employees had received orders for the videos his company LA Media sold, whether he had duplicated the movies and had sent them to the customers, all of which Isaacs admitted was done by him ...

http://news.avn.com/articles/Isaacs-...es-474308.html

The videos depicted bestiality and scatology if that is art it's precedented as obscene art so why is anyone surprised? Things like this; pushing the legal envelope, do this industry injustice and further make us all the favorite whipping boy as a group, especially in an election year such as this. Who needs the grief? Who wants to be grouped in the publics eye with legally obscene material? We sure as hell don't ...

This kind of behavior furthers no cause for this industry notwithstanding that counts 7 and 8 relating to §2257 Recordkeeping, not having the transcript in front of me, were either dropped or he was found not guilty of, and this may be of value with regard to the current §2257 complaint pending hence the possible silver lining I spoke of above but citing this case probably is a no starter. Anyway I imagine the case's appeal is forthcoming but IMHO, futile.

[tony286]

I dont understand you produce way out there material and you have a certain level of success.why not live in a country where they dont give a shit.no pun intended.

[Why]

the land of the free has fewer freedoms.

the first amendment is not meant to protect agreeable speech.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by raymor

So if I understand correctly, though they said an obvious pretext wouldn't be sufficient if it was completely unrelated to the work as a whole, they reversed the conviction (the guy got off) because the text and the pictures were thematically related, correct? So adding text along with the pictures did actually work. A Voltaire quotation, being wholly unrelated to the pictures, would not suffice, they said, correct?

Is it your opinion, then, that quotations from court opinions about the first amendment as it applies to nude photos, and commentary thereon, placed alongside examples of such works, would be thematically related and therefore (arguably) fall under Kois?

Assuming that the scholarly work is thematically related as expressed in Kois, so the argument can made, do you believe that's better than not having that argument available at all?

That is to say, which is easier to defend?:
anal sex videos
Court decisions about anal sex accompanied by anal sex videos

Either could put you in jail, but which is better?

I see where you're going, and in order to understand this better, you need to read one of the ugliest obscenity cases I know, maybe the worst, Hamling. http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/hamling.html

Publisher took a government commission report on obscenity, printed by the US Government Printing Office and added tons of porn, reissuing it as the "Illustrated" Report of the Presidential Commission on Pornography, and send out circulars to advertise it via the mail. Lots of hard core images in that brochure, and on the back, a legitimate and strong political statement about that report and why its findings were being ignored. A genuine political statement along with an illustration of the book cover. He was indicted for numerous violations of obscenity law. The jury convicted on obscenity for the advertising brochure but could not reach an agreement on the Illustrated Report itself. On appeal, the convictions for the brochure were affirmed. Hamling was actually tried before the Miller case was decided, and earlier law, arguably more protective of defendant-publishers was applied to determine obscenity. Take a look at the text of the strong political argument set out in that brochure as set out in the opinion. It was not enough for that jury.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by Why

the first amendment is not meant to protect agreeable speech.

Absolutely. Speech that everyone likes doesn't NEED protection. Therefore the first amendment must apply to speech the majority dislikes. Our rights protect us from.the tyranny of the majority.

(Just as hunting guns that people don't mind don't need second amendment protection, so it's only meaningful if it protects the types of guns the majority would prefer to outlaw.)

I wonder, what is "speech" and what is not? Really, is scat porn speech? I'd like to say it is. I'm not sure what the shit is trying to say, though.

[iSpyCams]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Any idea if Counts 7 and 8 were dropped?
The videos depicted bestiality and scatology if that is art it's precedented as obscene art so why is anyone surprised? Things like this; pushing the legal envelope, do this industry injustice and further make us all the favorite whipping boy as a group, especially in an election year such as this. Who needs the grief? Who wants to be grouped in the publics eye with legally obscene material? We sure as hell don't ...

We need the extremes, they are all that is making us look normal. The people trying to stop Porn are trying to stop ALL porn. And then they will go after everything else they don't agree with.

Once everyone agrees that beastiality and scat should be illegal they'll move on to anal, bdsm, inter-racial - whatever represents the extreme of what's left. And they'll keep trimming it down till there's nothing left.

It's not a question of whether scat is obscene or not, it's a question of whether grown ass adults need someone to tell them what is ok to jerk off to and what isn't.

[dev777]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

I see where you're going, and in order to understand this better, you need to read one of the ugliest obscenity cases I know, maybe the worst, Hamling. http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/hamling.html

Publisher took a government commission report on obscenity, printed by the US Government Printing Office and added tons of porn, reissuing it as the "Illustrated" Report of the Presidential Commission on Pornography, and send out circulars to advertise it via the mail. Lots of hard core images in that brochure, and on the back, a legitimate and strong political statement about that report and why its findings were being ignored. A genuine political statement along with an illustration of the book cover. He was indicted for numerous violations of obscenity law. The jury convicted on obscenity for the advertising brochure but could not reach an agreement on the Illustrated Report itself. On appeal, the convictions for the brochure were affirmed. Hamling was actually tried before the Miller case was decided, and earlier law, arguably more protective of defendant-publishers was applied to determine obscenity. Take a look at the text of the strong political argument set out in that brochure as set out in the opinion. It was not enough for that jury.

interesting stuff. didnt know about that.

[SleazyDream]

ahhhhh poooo

[Barry-xlovecam]

For many simpleminded people, and Rick Santorum was pandering to these knuckle draggers, all porn is rolled up into one so when pornographers presuming to be "shock artists" present shit smeared body parts in a sexual context or cattle fucking women, which I am made to understand is the nature of the bestiality charges against Isaacs, of what socially redeeming value is that (Miller v. California (1973))?

If Isaacs wanted shock value he could have depicted dismembered bodies in war or other monstrosities in the real world.

This (bestiality or scat) serves no legitimate purpose or cause and unless you are a sociopath you won't miss it.